User reviews

There is a scene Patricia Arquette says to Christian Slater she has a tradition to get pie after watching a movie and sit and talk about it. The problem with this movie is exactly that. There is nothing underneath all its action and violence to talk about. It's just a bunch of violent sequences the writer's put together. They just entertain you (thanks to its stars performances) for the moment and then they disappear into the thin air. Puff! Forgettable. Shallow. Pure popcorn.

Walken, Hooper and Pitt are amazing.

I didn't enjoy the performances, soundtrack, or story enough to recommend this movie. I didn't find it to be very special or memorable when compared to other films with a similar style. If you are a big fan of this genre then this movie will probably work for you, it just didn't really stand out to me. The "highlights" of True Romance don't outweigh some of the lesser parts of the movie for me. There are a couple of performances that I didn't especially enjoy (Gary Oldman) and I was not a fan of the script (some of the dialogue really turned me off). This review has been edited to remove spoilers.

This is a film that started out strong, then fell apart. The only thing that saves it is the acting, which is superb. Patricia Arquette is particularly good.

Clarence (Christian Slater) plays a complete fool, who lives in a fantasy world, and tries to live out a movie fantasy. Reality occasionally rears it's ugly head, but never when Clarence is around to see. He never has to face any consequences for his foolishness. He never even finds out that his actions lead to the death someone close to him, much less grieve for the poor fool.

The ending is a complete cop-out. We're asked to maintain the same state of denial that Clarence is in. (Don't read the rest of this paragraph if you don't want to know.) Imagine if the Godfather ended with Michael and his wife breaking out the Champagne bottles to celebrate his victory over his enemies, then living happily ever after.

Years after seeing this movie, I found Quentin Tarantino's script in a bookstore. Wow! What a great script. It's the same story, but it's structured differently, and it works a lot better. It also has a much more believable ending, which doesn't descend into codependence. It's too bad Tony Scott had to butcher the film. Don't see this movie. Read Tarantino's script.

As I was watching this movie, lots of things just felt wrong. For example, the way the met seemed so trite, until I learned more about it later on. Overall, the movie didn't work for me. And the ending was a complete cop-out. The hero never has to look at the things he has done, and doesn't even find out what happened to someone he was very close to.

Then I read Q. Tarentino's script. Wow! It was so much better than what we saw on the screen. He didn't tell the story in chronological order, so the things that didn't work for me in the movie actually worked really well in the script. And the ending made a whole lot more sense. It's a shame that Director Tony Scott tried to improve on the script. It would have been much better if done Tarentino's way.

True Romance is a film that, on paper, has everything going for it - Quentin Tarantino's sharp dialogue, a stellar cast, and music by Hans Zimmer. However, despite these promising elements, the movie doesn't quite come together as a cohesive whole.

The story presents an interesting contrast between its initial setup and conclusion, but the overall narrative feels disjointed. While many individual scenes are memorable, they seem stitched together without building into something greater. The pacing and transitions lack the fluidity needed to create a truly captivating experience.

The performances, however, are top-notch. Gary Oldman, Christopher Walken, and James Gandolfini deliver standout moments with Tarantino's signature dialogue. These performances elevate the film even when the direction and camera work occasionally falter.

One surprising misstep is Hans Zimmer's score. While he's known for enhancing films with his music, here it feels out of place and even distracting at times.

In the end, True Romance is a rare case where the whole is less than the sum of its parts. It will appeal to die-hard Tarantino fans for its dialogue and performances but may leave others feeling underwhelmed by its lack of narrative cohesion.

Considering the attention of the cast and overall talent that went into this film, being well known for one of Quentin Tarantino's earliest written films, and directed by Tony Scott. This film's story isn't too bad and not exactly original and somewhat far fetched. The settings of the scenery do look well.

It is certainly overly violent and overly stylized either way intriguing dialogue throughout. Not on the level of fascination of Pulp Fiction in terms of dialogue and intrigued but there are some decent moments. Overall the characters and lack of chemistry from both leads never feel quite authentic. The ending is extremely over the top with a chaotic shootout ending in multiple deaths, and of course our heroes end up surviving.

Don't kill me yet, let me speak, although Tarantino is good he is definitely nowhere near greatness, yet. Kill Bill was his best film (which i would give a 9 out of a 10), reservoir dogs was good, but far from great, a 6 out of a 10, Jackie brown was bad, and finally pulp fiction, one of the most overrated films ever alongside 2001 and Seven Samurai (both of which sucked terribly). Pulp fiction wasn't bad it just wasn't very good, just because the story was chopped up doesn't make it a good one, it was uninteresting and had ZERO action, also the rape scene and the dialogue were pointless, all they said was the f word and the rape scene was just wrong, if it had more action and a better story with better dialogue it would be much better, i would give Pulp a 4 out of a 10, so as you can see Tarantino is good but needs to do a lot more to become great. Now onto this movie, just let me say that this is Scott's film so give him some credit, Tarantino wrote it, Scott made it, all the performances and style are from Scott, he is a good director capable of just as much if not more then Tarantino. Overall this was an average film, basically a chick flick with violence, drugs, and great dialogue, a highlight of the film, the dialogue was creative an hilarious, and Brad Pitt cracked me up, he played the pothead so well, in fact he was a little too good, wonder what he was doing back then. It had style, it had humor, it had decent performances, but it lacked a complex story, action, and drama. I give it a 5 out of a 10, Scott has gotten better since this and i cant wait to see Domino, as for Tarantino i hope he continues making movies just as long as he makes them more like Kill Bill, he is good but don't think of him as a god because he is far from anywhere near that status, i hope he does Inglorious Bastards he would make a great war movie, also i would like to see his new kung fu movie, sounds good.